Windrows of cut crop material are typically rounded at their lateral margins and progressively slope down from a maximum height at the center to a minimum height at their edges. As a consequence, when windrows are gathered to form bales by balers, the finished bale tends to be larger in the center than at its opposite ends. To correct this tendency, more material can be added to the outer edges of the windrow, such as by laying down a pair of windrows side-by-side to produce one large “double windrow”. However, adding a second windrow alongside the first sometimes causes the windrow to be too wide, so that a standard pickup cannot reach the widest portions of the windrow unless it is equipped with gathering wheels or other suitable devices. Such products converge and consolidate the materials while they are still on the ground, just ahead of and before engagement by a pickup of a baler.
Another way of providing the capability of handling wide windrows is to design the baler for two-stage feeding from the ground to the baling chamber. In this approach the pickup serves as the first stage of the feeding mechanism and is wider than the bale chamber, so that the pickup can easily reach and accept all portions of the wide windrow. Specifically, this first stage is accomplished as a widened row of rotating tines lift forage onto the pickup header. Once picked up, the crop material is then converged toward the center by a pair of oppositely disposed stub augers. The materials is then delivered into the baling chamber by a second stage conveying device, such as a stuffer having stuffing forks, a rotor having rotating blades or another equivalent conveying device.
Unfortunately, the auger support mechanism of these types of widened pickups having auger screws, are appreciably wider than the width of the row of tines that ultimately defines the operable width of a windrow pickup. In other words, the overall pickup header width is considerably greater than its operational width, at least in part, due to the width of the components placed on both sides of the pickup, which are outside of its operational width. That is, the width of the row the spinning tines that actually pickup up crop material is narrower than the overall width of the device. The conventional arrangement of these components typically includes a cam to drive the tines, and two auger bearing supports that sandwich a drive sprocket. This construction tends to make the overall pickup header unit too wide, however. As a result, the header unit is less compact, thereby allowing a less efficient and lower yielding forage pickup.
One important feature of the related mechanism is that the augers have sufficient support for their bearings. It has been found that one bearing support is simply insufficient to hold a rotating auger, and as such two supports are generally deemed necessary. The conventional wisdom is that the power pickup, e.g., a drive sprocket, for each auger should be placed between the two bearings.
Moreover, it has been found that augers have a tendency to become clogged with, or blocked by crop material such as forage or hay as the augers feed an overabundance of forage from the tines and into the crop conveyers, e.g. the stuffers or rotors. It would be useful to minimize the occurrence of such blockage, because it often times requires that the operator halt the baling process to manually unclog the augers.
Another important aspect of this mechanism is the need for maximizing the tine-to-tine width, i.e., the width of the row of tines, while at the same time maintaining the overall pickup width to conform to various practical and regulatory requirements concerning baler pickup width. Some jurisdictions place limits on the overall width of farm machinery authorized to travel or be transported on roadways. Thus, it is important for a given allowed width of vehicle, that the amount of maximum usable width be maximized.
Hence there is a need for an improved pickup header that is more compact. In particular, there is a need for a pickup header that conforms to both European and United States shipping regulations, and general European Union farming regulations, regarding maximum baler pickup width. Of course, an improved pickup must maximize its operational width so as to increase forage-baling efficiency, e.g., when baling large or even two windrows. Such a pickup would also minimize crop material blockage of the auger screws.
Accordingly, one object of the present invention is to overcome present limitations in the prior art that restrict the ratio of useable tine-to-tine operational width, to, the overall width of the pickup.
Another object of the present invention is to provide a baler having a pickup with augers less prone to blockage by an overabundance of forage material.